Jiva Brahma difference leads to perpetual samsara
The Bhagavatam 3.28 (Devahuti being instructed by Bhagavan Kapila) says:
As to who is the Paramatman:
योऽन्तः प्रविश्य भूतानि भूतैरत्त्यखिलाश्रयः ।
स विष्ण्वाख्योऽधियज्ञोऽसौ कालः कलयतां प्रभुः ॥ ३८ ॥
He who has entered the beings, as their support, Brahman, he is called ‘Vishnu’.
The Lord, Brahman is to be worshiped in images.
Jiva Para bheda leads to continued samsara:
अर्चादौ अर्चयेत्तावद् ईश्वरं मां स्वकर्मकृत् ।
यावन्न वेद स्वहृदि सर्वभूतेष्ववस्थितम् ॥ २५ ॥
आत्मनश्च परस्यापि यः करोत्यन्तरोदरम् ।
तस्य भिन्नदृशो मृत्युः विदधे भयमुल्बणम् ॥ २६ ॥
He is to be worshiped in images as long as one has not realized It in his own heart, as his own self, who resides in all beings. He who perceives even a wee bit of difference between oneself and Brahman, for such a cognizer of difference, there is no respite from the fear of death.
The above is the upabrumhanam, alluding, of the Taittiriya
Upanishad: ‘उदरमन्तरं कुरुते’ ‘अथ तस्य भयं भवति’ (तै. उ. २ । ७ । १)
Shankara says in the Bhashya: यदा पुनरविद्यावस्थायां हि यस्मात् एषः अविद्यावान् अविद्यया प्रत्युपस्थापितं वस्तु तैमिरिकद्वितीयचन्द्रवत्पश्यत्यात्मनि च एतस्मिन् ब्रह्मणि, उत अपि, अरम् अल्पमपि, अन्तरं छिद्रं भेददर्शनं कुरुते ; भेददर्शनमेव हि भयकारणम् ; अल्पमपि भेदं पश्यतीत्यर्थः । अथ तस्माद्भेददर्शनाद्धेतोः तस्य भेददर्शिनः आत्मनो भयं भवति ।
We see a very close similarity between the wording of the Bhagavatam and Shankara’s bhashyam:
तस्य भिन्नदृशो मृत्युः विदधे भयमुल्बणम् ॥ २६ ॥ Bhagavatam.
तस्य भेददर्शिनः आत्मनो भयं भवति । Bhashyam.
Thus, Veda Vyasa teaches the Upanishadic abheda darshanam as the moksha kaaraNam which is the basis for Shankara’s bhashyam.
There are other tell tale evidences of Taittiriya ideas in this chapter of the Bhagavatam: https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ava One can see the ‘भीषास्माद्वातः पवते…’ with many more unknown interesting additions.
Om Tat Sat
Time and again you knock dvaita’s door and get nasty responses. Why?
The actual meaning of the references you have provided is not abhed, it’s bhed only. It means the universal Brahman and the inner self residing in jeevas is the same without a difference, where does it say jeevas are the same as Brahman?
By: Ramesh on February 9, 2020
at 7:41 am
Where are the nasty responses? Where does the Bhagavata shloka say //It means the universal Brahman and the inner self residing in jeevas is the same without a difference// ? Why do you desperately impose your funny ideas on Veda Vyasa and the Veda? You have to struggle to read the meaning in the straight words of the Veda and Veda Vyasa with the sole aim of masking their direct meaning and message. Such is the nasty ways of the Dvaitins that is only laughable.
By: adbhutam on February 10, 2020
at 2:15 am
Madhwa’s reading of “tat twam asi” as “atat twam asi” is one of the saddest jokes played om Hinduism by a Hindu for his sectarian agendas.
By: S K on February 10, 2020
at 12:43 pm
@S K – If a student who has developed ego after studying vedas for 12 years shows attitude towards his father/Guru only an insane person can say “you are that” – Moreover, Madhvacharya has said you can interpret both ways. Vyasatirtha has demonstrated 8 possible ways you can interpret “Tat tvam asi” – who gave advaitin the right to hold onto that one inappropriate meaning of “you are that” and show JeevaBrahmaaikya?? Moreover, all the examples given in that Tat Tvam Asi verse, like the “River merging with ocean, honey from different honeybees, etc” all propound Dvaita theory only, not advaita. Even if river merges with Ocean, the river still maintains its individuality, same with honey bees mentioned in the example.
By: Ramesh KN on February 11, 2020
at 8:45 am
https://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/tat-tvam-asi-nine-times/
सर्ववेदान्तसारं यद् ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वलक्षणम् ।
वस्तु अद्वितीयं तन्निष्ठं कैवल्यैकप्रयोजनम् ॥ १२ ॥ Srimadbhagavatam 12.13.12
[The essence of all the Vedanta-s (Upanishads) is ‘Brahma-atma-aikya’.
That the antaryami is Brahman is not doubted or mistaken. Only that the jiva is different from Brahman is the error that needs to be corrected. The antaryami brahmana of the Brihadaranyaka teaches: This antaryami is your Atman. If ‘Atman’ is not the jiva, then the jiva will have to anatma, jada.
By: adbhutam on February 13, 2020
at 3:33 am
Atman can be both Paramatma/Jeevatma – it depends on the context of the verse taken. “The antaryami brahmana of the Brihadaranyaka teaches: This antaryami is your Atman.” – Not sure which verse you are talking about, especially “antaryami is your atman” part, I think you mean “antaryami of all?”
By: Ramesh KN on February 15, 2020
at 9:31 am
In this video, on you tube, the following is my comment. I am placing it here to prove that the objection: //’If a student who has developed ego after studying vedas for 12 years shows attitude towards his father/Guru only an insane person can say “you are that”// is without any force.
We have to take into consideration the context/the situation when the Tat tvam asi teaching is given: Shvetaketu has returned from Gurukula completely puffed with arrogance. It would be totally improper to give him the teaching ‘You are That’ which will only increase the pride. Uddalaka is giving the teaching in order to put the boy on the right track. So, the advaitic meaning of Tat tvam asi is not that would fit the situation. Instead only if he is told that ‘You are not that’ or ‘You are only a reflection of or dependent on That’ the purpose of the teaching would be fulfilled.
To this objection/observation, we point out that:
Actually, even though Shvetaketu did return from Gurukula with an air of arrogance, when questioned by his father about his knowledge of the tattva ‘What is that knowing which everything is known’, the boy is floored. The inner transition takes place and he submits himself to his father and seeks that Tattva Jnana:
श्वेतकेतो यन्नु सोम्येदं महामना अनूचानमानी स्तब्धोऽस्युत तमादेशमप्राक्ष्यः येनाश्रुतं श्रुतं भवत्यमतं मतमविज्ञातं विज्ञातमिति कथं नु भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति
॥ ३ ॥ It is this portion of the above sentence that gives us the unmistakable impression that Shvetaketu has undergone a drastic change of mind: कथं नु भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति. Shankara’s bhashya for that portion is: सर्वानपि वेदानधीत्य सर्वं च अन्यद्वेद्यमधिगम्यापि अकृतार्थ एव भवति यावदात्मतत्त्वं न जानातीत्याख्यायिकातोऽवगम्यते । तदेतदद्भुतं श्रुत्वा आह, कथं नु एतदप्रसिद्धम् अन्यविज्ञानेनान्यद्विज्ञातं भवतीति ; एवं मन्वानः पृच्छति — कथं नु केन प्रकारेण हे भगवः स आदेशो भवतीति ॥
Shvetaketu asks: How does that teaching happen, O respected father?
Also, there is the rule that Atma Vidya should not be given unsought and that too only to the duly qualified. Both these requirements are met here: 1. Shvetaketu asks for it and 2. His way of addressing ‘BhagavaH’ shows he is qualified to receive it, especially that he is devoid of pride, etc. that was in him when he returned from the Gurukula.
Thus, the objection of the Dvaita Acharya that the prakaraNa, context/situation does not warrant the teaching of the advaitic meaning of Tat tvam asi is not sound. Moreover, the Advaitic meaning will in no way increase his pride (even if it is granted that he continued to be proud/arrogant) because the teaching is not ‘You are the Sarvajna Sarvashakta Ishwara’. If that were the intended meaning of Tat tvam asi, the objection could have sustained. But the Advaitic meaning is: You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa.
In fact the Dvaitic meaning ‘You are not That’ or ‘You are only dependent on That’ is out of context because Shvetaketu never thought that he is Ishwara. His admission of his alpajnatva is patent from his submitting to his father to learn this vidya. Nor did he think, at the time of getting this teaching ‘Tat tvam asi’ that he is independent. So, in no way the Dvaitic meaning of Tat tvam asi suits the situation.
By: adbhutam on February 13, 2020
at 3:38 am
I agree that the rule says that Atma Vidya should not be given unsought and that too only to the duly qualified. – But, as per your objection/observation, Svetaketu’s response here doesnt prove that he was fit to receive the Atma Vidya/Brahma Jnana. Here’s why,
1. If I come and tell you I have learnt everything about Advaita and I am a scholar. Then, you ask me “have you read the works of the kingmaker, patron saint of Vijayanagara Empire???” – If I respond like “is there any work like that?, please tell me more about it?” – Doesn’t mean my arrogance has vanished, though it definitely has taken a hit. Even though Svetaketu’s arrogance took a hit here, it definitely was not enough to give him Atma Vidya/Brahma Jnana. Even his father, Gautama, when approached King Pravahana was not immediately given this vidya and was asked to wait for some time. In Katha Upanishad, Nachiketa was lured with materialistic gifts by Yama to test him, before Yama could give Atma Vidya. So you see, there are numerous instances where a Guru has tested his shishyas who were even humble and had asked for Atma Vidya. Do you think an arrogant Svetaketu could have gotten it by asking just “one question of “please tell me, Bhagavah”?? The subsequent responses to tell more in the examples given were to make the point clearer and not due to his submitting.
2. Svetaketu uses Bhagavah many times in 5th chapter and 1st chapter. When talking with Pravahana, he addresses him as Bhagavah, but yet it is said “Svetaketu’s ego doesnt allow him to learn from others”
3. “Svetaketu didnt think he was Ishwar/God” – The use of “you are not that” here is to imply that he is dependent on that One Universal Self who is independent and without the knowledge of Brahman, his knowledge is not valid. When he doesn’t understand with the 1st example, then subsequent examples are given to make the teaching clearer. Taken in the context of the “I am an advaita scholar” example I provided above – Your next responses would be like “without knowing about Vidyaranya, you are not an advaitic scholar (thou are not that) – without understanding Panchadasi, you are not an advaitic scholar (thou are not that) – without understanding Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya, you are not an advaitic scholar (thou are not that) – I hope this makes it clearer.
If taken in this context, then telling Svetaketu “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” would have definitely increased his pride.
——-
All the 9 examples given show dependent-independent relationship and duality perfectly. The example of bird with a rope tied to its feet, river merging, honey bees, etc.
1. A bird which thinks it is free and independent will come back to its base becasue of the rope tied (dependent-independent relationship – meaning it comes back to Brahman, please note that the rope is still tied to its feet? meaning even at its base, it is still bound by the Brahman (Moksha of Dvaita controlled by Brahman)
2. River merging with ocean. Even when rivers with ocean, the river still maintains its individuality, (duality persists).
3. Honey bees. Even when a clump of honey is still collected, when you carefully look at the samples, their individuality is still not lost (duality persists)
By: Ramesh KN on February 15, 2020
at 9:24 am
//1. If I come and tell you I have learnt everything about Advaita and I am a scholar. Then, you ask me “have you read the works of the kingmaker, patron saint of Vijayanagara Empire???” – If I respond like “is there any work like that?, please tell me more about it?” – Doesn’t mean my arrogance has vanished, though it definitely has taken a hit. //
Response: The situation on hand, at the Chandogya 6th chapter, is not anywhere like the above. On the other hand, it is about the very vidya, knowing which and not knowing which decides liberation or bondage. It is not at all an academic question like what is stated above. So, the analogy in the counter is of no help here.
//Do you think an arrogant Svetaketu could have gotten it by asking just “one question of “please tell me, Bhagavah”?? The subsequent responses to tell more in the examples given were to make the point clearer and not due to his submitting.//
In the absence of the initial submitting, the discourse would not even have commenced. All the subsequent dialogue is only to expound the initial, crucial question ‘knowing which one, everything is known?’ The whole chapter is a knowledge dissemination and the story behind is only a setting for this, just as the Mahabharata is a story behind the Tattva jnana that is the Bh.Gita that comes thru the story.
Also, if we do not accept that the whole exposition started ‘only’ after Shvetaketu’s requesting his father to expound, but the rest of the dialogue came as mere clarifications, then the defect of the vidya having been given out despite the receiver continuing in arrogance cannot be set aside. There is no statement in the entire chapter except his initial request, that shows that S’s arrogance had given place to genuine jijnaasaa. And since the whole discourse ends in the Upanishad stating that he secured the knowledge, it goes without saying that the vidya was indeed given to a proper adhikari.
//If taken in this context, then telling Svetaketu “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” would have definitely increased his pride.//
The above objection of the Dvaitins is founded on their ignorance of Vedanta and Advaita metaphysics. The realization of oneself as ‘Chinmatra svarupa’ is that which can give no room whatsoever for pride because, as taught in the Brihadaranyaka ‘kaamah, sankalpah, vichikitsaa….ityetat sarvam mana eva’ [all emotions/vrittis vikaras are all of the manas only] and the Bh.gita 13th chapter ‘icchaa dveshah sukham duhkham …chetana dhritih’ are all kshetram. Kshetram has been taught there as a product of prakriti, pancha bhutas, gunas and is jada, anatma, as opposed to Purusha, the knower. The dharma, properties, of the observed can never be inhering in the observer. This is the fundamental premises on which the Kshetra-kshetrajna vibhaga is taught. Pride is a property of the manas. And when one realizes oneself as Chinmatra, the observer-Consciousness, he has already negated the manas, etc kshetra as anatma, jaDa as the observed, and non-existent. The famous verse of the Nirvana Shatkam ‘mano buddhi ahankara chittaani na aham…..na mey dvesha-ragau na mey lobha mohau, mado (mada = pride, arrogance) naiva mey naiva maatsarya bhaavah..’ says that the chidananda rupah (chinmatra) shivoham is distinct from the mans which alone can be the adhikaraNa for pride.
Not knowing this, people have raised this sapless objection that teaching/realizing someone as chinmatra will increase pride. Pride can be there only where there is a room for comparing:’I have x with me which no one else has’. For the one who realizes himself as Chinmatra, there is not anyone, anything, apart from himself the Chinmatra to compare with. Thus, this objection, like all else, fails to make any sense.
By: adbhutam on February 16, 2020
at 7:17 am
Response: The situation on hand, at the Chandogya 6th chapter, is not anywhere like the above. On the other hand, it is about the very vidya, knowing which and not knowing which decides liberation or bondage. It is not at all an academic question like what is stated above. So, the analogy in the counter is of no help here.
My RESPONSE: The analogy here is to show that Svetaketu’s response was a normal one and in no way can be termed as sublimation of arrogance/pride.
///In the absence of the initial submitting, the discourse would not even have commenced. All the subsequent dialogue is only to expound the initial, crucial question ‘knowing which one, everything is known?’ The whole chapter is a knowledge dissemination and the story behind is only a setting for this, just as the Mahabharata is a story behind the Tattva jnana that is the Bh.Gita that comes thru the story.
Also, if we do not accept that the whole exposition started ‘only’ after Shvetaketu’s requesting his father to expound, but the rest of the dialogue came as mere clarifications, then the defect of the vidya having been given out despite the receiver continuing in arrogance. There is no statement in the entire chapter except his initial request, that shows that S’s arrogance had given place to genuine jijnaasaa. And since the whole discourse ends in the Upanishad stating that he secured the knowledge, it goes without saying that the vidya was indeed given to a proper adhikari.
MY RESPONSE: ok, for argument sake, let’s just accept that Svetaketu shed his arrogance/pride and submitted before his father to learn the Atma Vidya. By telling him “thou are that,” and telling him that “He is Brahman/Atma” you are bringing his pride back again. It’s like Svetaketu was arrogant of his knowledge, then you remove his arrogance, then you tell him “The Universal Atma, That Atma is you”??? – Please note, Svetaketu is still a jignasu even after giving out this knowledge and not a jivanmukta, hence he is still susceptible to Pride, anger, etc.
///The above objection of the Dvaitins is founded on their ignorance of Vedanta and Advaita metaphysics. The realization of oneself as ‘Chinmatra svarupa’ is that which can give no room whatsoever for pride because, as taught in the Brihadaranyaka ‘kaamah, sankalpah, vichikitsaa….ityetat sarvam mana eva’ [all emotions/vrittis vikaras are all of the manas only] and the Bh.gita 13th chapter ‘icchaa dveshah sukham duhkham …chetana dhritih’ are all kshetram. Kshetram has been taught there as a product of prakriti, pancha bhutas, gunas and is jada, anatma, as opposed to Purusha, the knower. The dharma, properties, of the observed can never be inhering in the observer. This is the fundamental premises on which the Kshetra-kshetrajna vibhaga is taught. Pride is a property of the manas. And when one realizes oneself as Chinmatra, the observer-Consciousness, he has already negated the manas, etc kshetra as anatma, jaDa as the observed, and non-existent. The famous verse of the Nirvana Shatkam ‘mano buddhi ahankara chittaani na aham…..na mey dvesha-ragau na mey lobha mohau, mado (mada = pride, arrogance) naiva mey naiva maatsarya bhaavah..’ says that the chidananda rupah (chinmatra) shivoham is distinct from the mans which alone can be the adhikaraNa for pride.
MY RESPONSE: You are missing out the point here and blaming Dvaitins for that. You are talking from the point of realized soul/jivanmukta, Svetaketu is still a jignasu and not a realized soul/jivanmukta, so he is still susceptible to anger, pride, etc. Telling a jignasu who has just shed his arrogance and wants Atma Vidya, “thou are that” repeatedly is the most absurbd interpretatoin of all.
By: Ramesh KN on February 16, 2020
at 10:11 am
@ For a jijnaasu, the ‘atha’ shabda in the first brahma sutra says that he should be a shama damaadi sampanna. If pride were to enter a person in the course of Atma vidya, then he would not have been certified by this Upanishad at the very end: स यथा तत्र नादाह्येतैतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्य स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो इति तद्धास्य विजज्ञाविति विजज्ञाविति ॥ ३ ॥ The last two words here say: He indeed realized it, (repeat).
Not being able to see all this, the Dvaitins have jumped to make the ‘increase pride’. If S had correctly understood the teaching as it proceeded, there is no way there could be even the remote possibility of pride setting in. The Karya – Karana ananyatva is the thread running throughout the discourse. Upadana karanam is not a person who possesses sarvajnatva, etc. Ishwara gunas, but kevala nirguna chaitanyam as Advaita has it. It is that chaitanyam that the upanishad teaches in ‘tat tvam asi’ where the ‘tvam’ is reduced to the upadana karanam by showing the body, mind complex as a product of the pancha (here three) bhutas. Thus, when S has realized himself as Sat, Brahman, that is devoid of manas, etc. how can he have pride that ‘I am the jagat kaaranam Ishwara’? This is the way dvaitins see this situation revealing their lack of knowledge of the Advaitic method. From their point of view, the jagatkaranam is Ishwara, saguna entity, and in that scenario naturally tat tvam asi will never apply to the jiva as it applies in Advaita. Superimposing their scenario on Advaita they have raised this objection. One can easily see how they have erred. Even today many learned scholars in public make this silly observation: Mayavadins say ‘I am God’ (naane devaru). This is the most laughable thing. They have not even realized that for Advaita ‘God/Ishwara’ as Dvaitins see is different from Brahman. It is with this mistaken idea about Advaita they make the charge of ‘increasing pride.’
By: adbhutam on February 16, 2020
at 3:18 pm
How can you come to a conclusion that Svetaketu has had realization? The conclusion is that he has learnt/understood the teaching. Advaita says liberation happens from realization of knowledge and not knowledge alone. why is it that advaita takes whatever suits them the most and discard other things. Uddalaka after learning the Atma Vidya is not a realized soul, but his shishya Svetaketu is realized? – Its like the Ishwara concept of Advaita, where the Gods themselves havent had realization of Brahman, but they are helping jignasus achieve Brahman realization.
Svetaketu’s pride was reduced during the course of the teaching of “you are not that” to the extent by the end, he understood he is dependent on that One Independent Brahman. Its only illogical conclusion to say his pride was decreased by repeatedly telling him “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” – Svetaketu “understood” the teaching, but he didnt realize it. Its only laughable to interpret all this as an arrogant Svetaketu became humble, then he was told “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” – then he realized himself as That.
If you are going around telling “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” – even Jignasus will go around telling “Naane Devaru” – I even heard some people following advaita asking “can I chant Aham Brahmasmi 108 times daily” – so please dont blame dvaitins for that.
By: Ramesh KN on February 17, 2020
at 11:23 am
When the direct simple meaning of ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ is to be circumvented one can come up with 8 or 8*10^n interpretations. The purport of the Vedas is indeed Advaitha. Kanchi Mahaswami would always say that when different schools of thought are listed as Thrayee, Sankhyam, Yogam, Pashupatham and Vaishnavam, Thrayee always refers to Advaitha.
By: Arun Subramaniyan on February 13, 2020
at 10:33 am
You need to see the overall context and correlate with other sources to confirm at a point of which translation is more clearer. Advaita still has a lot of questions that are not clear/yet to be answered. Without that, it will stand, sorry to say this, anti-vedantic.
By: Ramesh KN on February 15, 2020
at 9:30 am
//How can you come to a conclusion that Svetaketu has had realization? The conclusion is that he has learnt/understood the teaching. Advaita says liberation happens from realization of knowledge and not knowledge alone. why is it that advaita takes whatever suits them the most and discard other things. //
तद्धास्य विजज्ञाविति विजज्ञाविति ॥ ३ The word ‘vijajnau’ is the verb form in the past tense of the word ‘vijnaanam’. This is opposite ‘jnau’ which is of the noun jnaanam. In order to differentiate them the meaning given is: jnaanam = mere knowledge, vijnaanam = special knowledge or direct experience. This word vijnaanam is given the meaning: Bh.Gita 6.8 where the words jnanam and vijnanam are present: विज्ञानं विशेषज्ञानं अपरोक्षज्ञानं वा। by Madhvacharya. Sri Raghavendra Tirtha too in the Gitavivruti says the same in 6.8: परोक्षापरोक्षज्ञाने ज्ञान-विज्ञानशब्दाभ्यामुच्यते | So, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the Advaitin taking that word to mean realization. Also, the Upanishad is there to give moksha-jnanam. It is not a mere understanding. In order to specify that the aspirant has gained that aparoksha jnanam the Upanishad even mentions about it. Only then the Upanishad will be conveying that the Vidya there gives the required supreme phala. This happens in the case of Kathopanishat too where it ends the discourse by declaring that Nachiketas obtained this knowledge.
In Advaita, liberation and aparoksha jnanam are co-terminus. There is no time gap between aparoksha jnanam and the jiva becoming mukta. That is why jivanmukti is admitted. Can you specify what // Advaita takes that suits them the most and discard other things// ?
By: adbhutam on February 22, 2020
at 6:40 am
तद्धास्य विजज्ञाविति विजज्ञाविति ॥ ३ The word ‘vijajnau’ is the verb form in the past tense of the word ‘vijnaanam’. This is opposite ‘jnau’ which is of the noun jnaanam. In order to differentiate them the meaning given is: jnaanam = mere knowledge, vijnaanam = special knowledge or direct experience. This word vijnaanam is given the meaning: Bh.Gita 6.8 where the words jnanam and vijnanam are present: विज्ञानं विशेषज्ञानं अपरोक्षज्ञानं वा। by Madhvacharya. Sri Raghavendra Tirtha too in the Gitavivruti says the same in 6.8: परोक्षापरोक्षज्ञाने ज्ञान-विज्ञानशब्दाभ्यामुच्यते | So, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the Advaitin taking that word to mean realization. Also, the Upanishad is there to give moksha-jnanam. It is not a mere understanding. In order to specify that the aspirant has gained that aparoksha jnanam the Upanishad even mentions about it. Only then the Upanishad will be conveying that the Vidya there gives the required supreme phala. This happens in the case of Kathopanishat too where it ends the discourse by declaring that Nachiketas obtained this knowledge.
In Advaita, liberation and aparoksHa jnanam are co-terminus. There is no time gap between aparoksha jnanam and the jiva becoming mukta. That is why jivanmukti is admitted. Can you specify what // Advaita takes that suits them the most and discard other things// ?
///You are again mistaken between knowledge and realization of knowledge. The teachings given here are Paroksha jnana (knowledge as per advaita) which leads to aparoksha jnana (realization of knowledge). If a jignasu can experience aparoksha jnana by mere understanding the knowledge, then why are you not realized, or why are the direct discliples of Shankaracharya or even Chandrashekar Saraswati (all of them) not realized???
The word Vijnaanam is meant to indicate “special knowledge obtained through supra-sensory means” which is temporary and not related to “final realization”
Again, the phala of upanishad is to impart knowledge and indicates that the aspirant has “understood” the knowledge (paroksha jnana), like in the case of Nachiketa who declares he has “obtained” the knowledge – it doesnt specify “immediate realization (aparoksha jnana)”
Also, I challenge you if you can specify any real-life examples of people who were ignorant, then had knowledge, and had immediate realization after understanding the knowledge (without any practice) in Advaita.
By: Ramesh KN on February 24, 2020
at 10:46 am
//Uddalaka after learning the Atma Vidya is not a realized soul, but his shishya Svetaketu is realized? – Its like the Ishwara concept of Advaita, where the Gods themselves havent had realization of Brahman, but they are helping jignasus achieve Brahman realization.//
How do you know Uddalaka was not realized? For Advaitins, any Atma vidya taught in the Upanishad is by a realized person. In Advaita, Ishwara is nitya Jnani. With gods, yes, all of them are not realized, but they help jijnasus. Indra, in the Kaushitaki Upanishad, is a realized one. Yama in the KaTha, is a realized one. Nachiketas tells him: Who but you can teach this vidya?
By: adbhutam on February 22, 2020
at 6:50 am
ok, here’s the dvaita objection of Jivanmukta concept of advaita. A Jivanmukta who has realized “one without a second” and is Svaprakasha still continues to exist in this world which is nonluminous and which is the material cause of avidya, which leads to vyabhichara dosha. So, either a jivanmukta is not a realized soul or he knows there is still a higher entity which is inexplicable which is giving a jivanmukta the realization he has attained (similar to dvaita).
By: Ramesh KN on February 24, 2020
at 10:53 am
A jivanmukta has already burnt his Sanchitha Karma on account of Self Realization and does not further accumulate any fresh karma (Agami). Prarabdha alone remains which can be exhausted only after experiencing its fruits with this current body. A Self Realized person is indeed a muktha for he will not collect fresh karmas and his past karmas have been burnt.
Ramana Maharishi is one great example of a jivanmukta.
There is no scope here for your so called vybhichara dosha.
By: Arun Subramaniyan on February 24, 2020
at 4:10 pm
//Svetaketu’s pride was reduced during the course of the teaching of “you are not that” to the extent by the end, he understood he is dependent on that One Independent Brahman.//
Then, the defect of giving the Atma Vidya to an anadhikari cannot be avoided. It would be alright if one says: Shvetaketu gained clarity during the teaching in several stages. But to say ‘his pride reduced gradually’ is against ‘amaanitvam adambhitvam…’ of the Bh/Gita 13th chapter.
//Its only illogical conclusion to say his pride was decreased by repeatedly telling him “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” – Svetaketu “understood” the teaching, but he didnt realize it. //
Who has said this? The Advaitin does not say this.
// Its only laughable to interpret all this as an arrogant Svetaketu became humble, then he was told “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” – then he realized himself as That.//
Even these are not the words of the Advaitin. Chinmatra svarupa has nothing in it to cause any pride.
//If you are going around telling “You, the chinmatra svarupa, are verily That, chinmatra svarupa” – even Jignasus will go around telling “Naane Devaru” – I even heard some people following advaita asking “can I chant Aham Brahmasmi 108 times daily” – so please dont blame dvaitins for that.//
If someone claims ‘naane devaru’ after hearing that he is chinmatra svarupa, neither he nor who hears him have understood the meaning of the term chinmatra. Chinmatra has nothing to do with the idea of ‘devaru’ that is commonly held. Shankaracharya in the Brahmanuchintanam has said:
ब्रह्मैवाहं न संसारी मुक्तोऽहमिति भावयेत् ।
अशक्नुवन्भावयितुं वाक्यमेतत्सदाऽभ्यसेत् ॥ १८॥
Let one contemplate on the idea ‘I am brahman, not samsari, I am mukta’. If he is not able to do that let him at least repeat this vaakya. So, the 108 times repeating is admitted. If dvaitins think that the Advaitic ‘aham brahma asmi’ is ‘naane devaru’, it reveals their ignorance of the Advaitic import. They will have to study the Advaita shaastra more seriously.
By: adbhutam on February 22, 2020
at 7:02 am